Has anyone used this recently with a standard grade oil like Super Tech 5w20? The ST voa shows that it doesn't contain any moly as a form of anti wear. Would something like this help 'boost' the additive pack of the ST so that I could get a better performing oil? Or is this stuff snake oil like a lot of other additives?

I didn't like it with EDGE gold bottle W/TI, BUT IT SEEMED FINE WITH Synpower (that has no moly). I would CAUTION to only put in a TBS at a time - no need for the whole batch. Just replenish as needed. 1 TBS is a TON of additive. You could thin a 1/2 bottle into a litre of oil and mix it up and put in a cup of THAT. I would NOT toss in a 1/2 bottle on a small engine. This experiment Really screwed up my Fit that was running well on the Edge b4 I put this stuff in. Again, the VSP 0w20 im currently running likes the LiquiMoly.

And I will add my std reply, that no modern oils used a colloidal MoS2( suspended nano poweder) - they are all "soluble" sulfur carbamates moly Amines or the like _ FOR GOOD Reason.

Mos2 does indeed work. Mos2 is NOT snake oil. Yes use half the bottle on your OCI. It takes 500-1000 (around 750-800) miles before it bonds to the internal part of your motor.

Wish we actually knew it worked! No real independent engineering tests to verify all the claims over the years. Only guesses.

Fetch:

Do you mean independent studies of a particular MoS2 product, such as Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction? Or do you mean independent studies of the principal ingredient molybdenum disulfide? If the latter, there are plenty of studies. MoS2 is the most common industrial lubricant in use today.

If you mean independent studies of a particular branded MoS2 product, then, no, probably none. But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.

I sorry you guys cant find a good oil where you don't need additives Note that oil formulated with high PPM moly usually wont pass either TEOST. 0w20 gets an ILSAC "waiver" as its not used in turbo apps (yet). I may forgo using PU 5w20 in the Fit and run another OCI with VSP as this oil seems like the real deal in 0w20's over M1 and QSUD run in the past. Clean running stuff that allows the engine to make advertised HP.

Mos2 does indeed work. Mos2 is NOT snake oil. Yes use half the bottle on your OCI. It takes 500-1000 (around 750-800) miles before it bonds to the internal part of your motor.

Wish we actually knew it worked! No real independent engineering tests to verify all the claims over the years. Only guesses.

Fetch:

Do you mean independent studies of a particular MoS2 product, such as Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction? Or do you mean independent studies of the principal ingredient molybdenum disulfide? If the latter, there are plenty of studies. MoS2 is the most common industrial lubricant in use today.

If you mean independent studies of a particular branded MoS2 product, then, no, probably none. But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.

Since we are only talking about putting extra moly in engines, I was wondering if there are any actual field studies, one small fleet getting Mobil1 5w-30, compared to another small fleet with the same oil plus a can of LubroMoly MOS2. Any benefits, specifically in wear?

And what would LubroMoly have to be afraid of? The results probably. Yes I know moly is used to coat upper piston rings in many engines, and that moly in general is good stuff. For example, I do use Mazda Genuine Motor Oil (MGMO) because it does have 600 ppm dinuclear (aka dimer) moly, and I'm assuming they are doing something special, as they claim on the bottle that the extra moly helps when running cold. Its just my assumption that more moly is "good". No proof. Fleet study might help here. The companies can run and hide I guess....

But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.

This is a misrepresentation.

The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on.

But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.

This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.

Approved by vehicle manufacturers? Molykote (Dow Corning's trade name for MoS2 in oil suspension) complies with General Motors (Opel) spec B0401264, Volkswagen specification TL52112 and B7217, General Electric's specification TIL-1117-3Ri and Pratt & Whitney's specificition PWA-36246. And, one of the first spectacular uses of MoS2 in motor oil suspension was by Rolls-Royce in their Merlin engine. Granted, the Rolls Royce supercharged V-12 water cooled Merlin was only used in airplanes but the engine application seems appropriate. Pratt & Whitney is still using it.

Still in doubt? Here's a picture of the VW distributed MoS2 tubes. Look carefully at the image - second line from the bottom - and it says Volskwagen of America. :

Note that this product was intended by VW for use in motor oil - any motor oil - that you happened to be using in your Beetle. Vehicles with air-cooled engines suffered from serious heat issues and the motor oil took a real beating. And, speaking from personal experience, it was not unusual to find a VW dealer stocking this same product in yellow tubes with only the Dow-Corning name and logo.

Sam: The whole problem with your position is one of shifting standards:

On the one hand, you like Techron, so the standard you choose in support of Techron is that technical research done by Chevron employees is sufficient. But you are unwilling to apply this same standard to other additives which you do not favor. It is most unlikely that you will find independent technical research on the product Techron, simply because it is a proprietary product. Companies tend to keep the details of their research secret. Favorable summaries are public - details are secret.

The independent research that supports Techron is research actually done on PEA - the principal ingredient in Techron. But using that logic, there is a ton of independent research on molybdenum disulfide, going back for decades. MoS2 has been in widespread use for close to 100 years - with spectacular engine oil applications by Rolls Royce in the late 1930s and beyond. You seem to accept independent research supporting the utility of PEA, but for reasons of convenience, you are unwilling to accept independent research supporting the use of MoS2 (the chemical).

Still doubting? Go to SAE's research website and search for molybdenum. Plan on wading through 1,398 research papers. Why would you expect less? Molybdenum disulfide (and molybdenum in other forms) is the most common industrial lubricant in use today, and for a good reason. It is slippery. It resists pressure. It resists heat. And it does all of those things better than either mineral or synthetic motor oil.

Still at SAE's website, do a search for Techron. You will get 4 results - 2 of which deal with audio equipment and 1 deals with sunroofs. The only paper remotely relevant deals with diesel injectors. But if you search for polyether amine (PEA), the principal ingredient in Techron, you'll find much more research.

I appreciate that you like Techron. Actually, I like it too. It's a good product and does what it claims to do. But I am not so in love with Techron that it blinds me and overwhelms my thought processes so that I cannot conceive of another additive product which performs as claimed. If you want to carry on an intelligent discussion of additives such as MoS2 (or Techron), I suggest you do so on a level playing field:

1) If anecdotes and employee-run internal test results are adequate for one additive, they should be adequate for other additives.

2) If you decide to judge additives based on independent tests of their principal ingredients (and such tests results are frequently available), then independent tests of the principal ingredients in another additive should be equally acceptable.

3) Finally, you need to accept that companies simply don't reveal proprietary details about their products nor do they reveal details of internal testing... period. There are lots of reasons for this: legal, business competition, even marketing reasons. But it's simply a fact of life. That includes Techron and Molykote and Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction. Summaries are revealed but not the actual tests.

It would also be most unusual to have an independent study of a proprietary product (unless maybe it was paid for by the company). So, what is left? Anecdotes and endorsements. From a business marketing standpoint, this makes perfect sense - much easier to sell the image or the myth or the endorsement than to sell the hard technical details of the product.

But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.

This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.

You clearly missed the part about that paper being peer-reviewed before being accepted by SAE.

Since we are only talking about putting extra moly in engines, I was wondering if there are any actual field studies, one small fleet getting Mobil1 5w-30, compared to another small fleet with the same oil plus a can of LubroMoly MOS2. Any benefits, specifically in wear?

And what would LubroMoly have to be afraid of? The results probably. Yes I know moly is used to coat upper piston rings in many engines, and that moly in general is good stuff. For example, I do use Mazda Genuine Motor Oil (MGMO) because it does have 600 ppm dinuclear (aka dimer) moly, and I'm assuming they are doing something special, as they claim on the bottle that the extra moly helps when running cold. Its just my assumption that more moly is "good". No proof. Fleet study might help here. The companies can run and hide I guess....

Fetch: I've been following MoS2 additives since the 1970's and I don't know of a study that goes to your question. I just posted a rather lengthy response to Sam2000 regarding MoS2. If you follow the link in my reply to the SAE research paper website, you might find something of interest (but it will take a lot of looking because there's a lot of research on MoS2). If you are looking for research on a specific brand of MoS2, that may not be available, for reasons I explained in my reply.

Other than the automotive applications mentioned in the Sam2000 reply, there was an extensive study of Dow-Corning's Molykote done by Eazor Express - and OTR truck line - using Molykote in their hydraulic systems. The reseult of the test was that Eazor could extend the hydraulic OCI by 5% (or something of that magnitude) without adversely affecting parts life or system longevity. A 5% increase in hydraulic OCI may not sound like much, but this was a BIG DEAL to a fleet operator like Eazor. I have searched several times for a copy of this study but can't find it. I'm sure it's available somewhere, but we may have to wait until the 'net' expands.

If you go to this link you can see which motor oil makers like and include moly in their additive packages and which ones do not. The Schaeffer folks clearly like it. Liqui-Moly makes several motor with MoS2. Other oil companies can't seem to make up their minds. This is true of other additives as well.

I honestly don't think Liqui-Moly is afraid of any test results. MoS2 (regardless of who packages the stuff) works as claimed. I'm sure Liqui-Moly has tested their product extensively but companies tend to keep the details of their research confidential.

A final thought: from a company perspective, there are three 'negatives' regarding the use or inclusion of MoS2 in motor oil. First, it may settle out. And, I'm not sure you can depend on Walmart customers to 'shake well before using'.

Finally, remember that one on the first and most spectacular uses of MoS2 was to provide limp-home (or limp-down) protection for fighter planes that had lost their oil. MoS2 will really do this, and Liqui-Moly actually mentions this property. But, if you were an oil company, do you really want to be around when some poor slob destroys his engine from lack of oil? Probably not, regardless of how good your product may be.

But there are no independent studies of most proprietary products, such as Techron. That doesn't mean the products don't work or even work as claimed. It does mean that manufacturers tend to keep the research results and product details confidential.

This is a misrepresentation. The SAE requires technical papers to be peer reviewed by experts. So the available technical paper including research and testing results on Techron can be relied on. But even more importantly, Techron has multiple VEHICLE manufacturer approval. This is clearly independent of the oil company and means Mercedes, BMW etc would have to stand behind any damage caused by the usage of an approved additive for unlimited mileage in the case of Mercedes CPO vehicles and 10 years for Hyundai vehicles.

The SAE paper to which you are referring was written by Chevron employees. I'm sure it's good research and an interesting read, but the conclusions should not surprise anyone - they liked Techron (and they're still working at Chevron). It also costs $24 from SAE. You can spend your money if you want to hear what Chevron thinks about its own product.

You clearly missed the part about that paper being peer-reviewed before being accepted by SAE.

Simp: I think it was you who missed the point. Aside form the fact that this paper was done by Chevron employees, it was a study of PAE, not Techron.

So, are we all willing to accept the results of test studies of the principal ingredient in an additive?

Thank you Dave for finally providing the manufacturer approval information and some indication of the limited use cases for when to use MoS2 based additives.

Had you not been so emotional about this, you would have provided this far earlier rather than insulting members along the way.

The approved use of the MoS2 additive is clearly limited and not applicable or necessary for 99.99% of vehicle owners. No Liqui Moly oil that contains their MoS2 based additive is approved by any manufacturer.

Note, this is not doubting that it does something. All additives do something. The point is whether this something makes a positive difference or not.

Given that MoS2 is a proven and relatively easily available dry lubricant, if it were able to consistently improve fuel economy, you would think that given the CAFE incentives, vehicle manufacturers would have developed standards incorporating its use to get the official mpg up and claim the credits.

Lastly, I leave you with this quote:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Quote:

Do we know if MoS2 additive works in modern oil?

We don't.

Modern oils usually have a soluble moly of molybdenum Dithiocarbamate that works fine as a friction reducer.

Thank you Dave for finally providing the manufacturer approval information and some indication of the limited use cases for when to use MoS2 based additives.

Had you not been so emotional about this, you would have provided this far earlier rather than insulting members along the way.

The approved use of the MoS2 additive is clearly limited and not applicable or necessary for 99.99% of vehicle owners.

Thank you Sam. Where do you get this stuff? 99.99%?? Volkswagens only constitute 1/1000th of all the vehicles in use? At least on planet earth, there are slightly more VW's in use, the last time I checked.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

No Liqui Moly oil that contains their MoS2 based additive is approved by any manufacturer.

So much hot air. You do not know the composition of Liqui-Moly's oil products. As I noted above, companies tend to keep that kind of information confidential.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

Note, this is not doubting that it does something. All additives do something. The point is whether this something makes a positive difference or not.

Ask Volkswagen. Or GM. Or Pratt & Whitney.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

Given that MoS2 is a proven and relatively easily available dry lubricant, if it were able to consistently improve fuel economy, you would think that given the CAFE incentives, vehicle manufacturers would have developed standards incorporating its use to get the official mpg up and claim the credits.

'Trust the big oil companies - they will take care of you'. You are welcome to do so.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

Lastly, I leave you with this quote:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Quote:

Do we know if MoS2 additive works in modern oil?

We don't.

Modern oils usually have a soluble moly of molybdenum Dithiocarbamate that works fine as a friction reducer.

Okay, so he doesn't know. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

Here are two more quotes of interest:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Originally Posted By: dave5358

<snip>Will oil analysis reveal the form of the additive in use? For example MoS2 versus soluble moly?

Oil analysis will not reveal the exact type of moly used.

And regarding Liqui-Moly products:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Quote:

Does Lubro Moly's [Liqui Moly's] version fully activate at about the same oil temperature range as the Infineum product?

Since we don't know the form of moly they are using no one can make an educated comment.

I'm not questioning Molakule's words but simply noting that many of his answers are "we don't know". At least he's honest on this. As I have suggested, companies keep their cards close to the vest.

BTW. if Molakule doesn't know, and he's in the business, where do you get your detailed information? 99.99%??

---

1) If anecdotes and employee-run internal test results are adequate for one additive, they should be adequate for other additives.

2) If you decide to judge additives based on independent tests of their principal ingredients (and such tests results are frequently available), then independent tests of the principal ingredients in another additive should be equally acceptable.

3) Finally, you need to accept that companies simply don't reveal proprietary details about their products nor do they reveal details of internal testing... period. There are lots of reasons for this: legal, business competition, marketing reasons. But it's simply a fact of life. That includes Techron and Molykote and Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction. Summaries are revealed but not the actual tests.

Dave, can you provide details about VW's approval beyond the original air cooled Beetle? Or Rolls Royce use beyond the 1930's? And exactly which motor vehicles use Pratt and Whitney engines?

I'll change my 99.99% comment as soon as you can explain how many vehicles these manufacturer approvals cover and in which circumstances they are to be used. Liqui Moly themselves make no mention of any approvals for their MoS2 additive.

While you are off doing research, also check Liqui Moly's website and their oils. They state that two oils, 10w40 and 20w50 contain the MoS2 additive. These oils have no direct manufacturer approval.

I think it is reasonable to presume their other oils, which do have manufacturer approvals, don't contain the same additive. If this additive had properties that made it useful for the majority of users, then it would be in their mainstream oils, proudly proclaimed, with the benefits stated as fact.

I apologize. They make airplane engines, but I thought most readers would know that. The Merlin is an airplane engines as well.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

While you are off doing research...

Sam, you should do your own research, since you only accept research results which agree with your preconceived ideas.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

... If this additive had properties that made it useful for the majority of users, then it would be in their mainstream oils, proudly proclaimed, with the benefits stated as fact.

Molakule indicates that it can't be determined by testing. I'll accept that, even if you know better.

'Trust big oil companies - they will take care of you'. You are welcome to do that.

---

1) If anecdotes and employee-run internal test results are adequate for one additive, they should be adequate for other additives.

2) If you decide to judge additives based on independent tests of their principal ingredients (and such tests results are frequently available), then independent tests of the principal ingredients in another additive should be equally acceptable.

3) Finally, you need to accept that companies simply don't reveal proprietary details about their products nor do they reveal details of internal testing... period. There are lots of reasons for this: legal, business competition, marketing reasons. But it's simply a fact of life. That includes Techron and Molykote and Liqui-Moly MoS2 Anti Friction. Summaries are revealed but not the actual tests.

"Combustion chamber deposits accumulate in a new gasoline engine and can result in an octane requirement increase (ORI) of as much as 8 to 10 octane numbers. In some cases, a higher octane fuel is required to prevent engine knock (detonation).

A unique new additive concentrate has been developed which reduces combustion chamber deposits and lowers the engine's octane requirement. This new additive is an ashless dispersant based on polyether amine chemistry. Laboratory and fleet test results show that after using one tankful of gasoline treated with additive, the engine's octane requirement is typically reduced by 30% to 40% of the original engine ORI. This benefit lasts for several thousand kilometers until the deposits reestablish themselves in the combustion chamber.

In addition to the octane requirement decrease (ORD) effect, other benefits from the use of this additive include engine run-on reduction and intake system deposit cleanup."

---

I see a reference to PEA (polyether amine), but none to Techron. This is a study of PEA.

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

Also, are you advocating the usage of MoS2 in its basic form? I hope not.

I'm not advocating anything.

Since you mentioned it, MoS2 is simply a chemical. It's mined in the US as well a many other countries - Climax Molybdenum is the largest US producer. You can buy MoS2 on eBay in various grades or particle sizes - the finest grade I've seen was ~1-2 micron size particles.

In the US, Dow Corning is the principal re-packager of this product under the name Molykote. Liqui-Moly appears to be the largest German supplier. Liqui-Moly's varios MoS2 products are popular in the US at least in part because Dow-Corning stopped selling engine oil additive in the US. They still sell Molykote oil additive in other parts of the world, like Brazil - celebrating 60 years of sales!

Both companies are simply selling ultra-fine power (.2-.3 micron size) in a mineral oil suspension. Since a typical oil filter has little effect on particles less than ~10 microns, particle sizes below that size should work. So, yes, you could use the fine powder with a couple of caveats: First, it's messy stuff - truly MESSY. Second, the larger the particle size, the more likely it is to settle out of suspension. By the time you get to sub-micron size particles, it stays in suspension.

Usage in basic form? Is there some other form?

----

Sam: You're entitled to your own beliefs, however removed from reality they may be. But, when, as above, you deliberately misrepresent a fact - an abstract which you were trumpeting - it doesn't encourage the continuation of debate.

If this were an isolated instance, I would probably overlook it, but it seems to be part and parcel of your style:

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

MoS2 is a dry lubricant and no oil manufacturer or vehicle manufacturer approves the addition of it to oil...

Except VW and GM and...

Originally Posted By: Sam2000

You need to cease this false equivalence about PEA and MoS2 as well as this made up idea that PEA has been tested and not Techron.

Nope, it was PEA.

It's clear I'm not going to change your mind. Not remotely possible. But I'm concerned that some other person who reads this BITOG thread might take you seriously. You might consider that as you spread misinformation.

I am asking you for VEHICLE manufacturer approvals for the MoS2 dry lubricant or additive that you recommend others use. But you keep on saying that I am trusting the oil companies. And you have not provided anything beyond VW approval for air cooled VW Beetles and 1930s Rolls Royce usage.

But you want others to use MoS2, in whatever form, for engines in whatever condition, because an oil company, Liqui Moly, have tested their own additive, an additive which puts raw MoS2 through a special process.

You also claim that the MoS2 dry lubricant is the same as an additive. But Liqui Moly point out that they put MoS2 through a special process to make it compatible with oil.

And for some reason you bring up Techron and claim that the Chevron study can not be trusted despite it being peer reviewed and published by the SAE.

And then you ignore that it is multiple manufacturer approved for usage every 3000 miles in engines of any type of any age.

And that unlike Liqui Moly, you can find evidence of the approval and usage intervals in various manufacturer publications.

Its interesting to watch the progression of your logic, slowly twisting and contorting. Please continue.

"Techron is a patented fuel additive developed by the Chevron Corporation, usually consisting of gasoline mixed with 400ppm of polyetheramine"

If you continued reading the entire paper, you would have seen where they tested different concentrations of the additive, establishing a concentrated level suitable for one tank clean up and the corresponding interval.

And levels of additive required to keep clean have also been established by Chevron and others most notably all top tier retailers who are approved by all major manufacturers.

Do you really want to continue claiming there is a difference between testing of PEA and Techron and that those who believe the study are wrongly trusting big oil companies?

In Dave's attempt to say MoS2 is approved as an engine oil additive by manufacturers, he said this:

Originally Posted By: dave5358

Approved by vehicle manufacturers? Molykote (Dow Corning's trade name for MoS2 in oil suspension) complies with General Motors (Opel) spec B0401264, Volkswagen specification TL52112 and B7217, General Electric's specification TIL-1117-3Ri and Pratt & Whitney's specificition PWA-36246. And, one of the first spectacular uses of MoS2 in motor oil suspension was by Rolls-Royce in their Merlin engine. Granted, the Rolls Royce supercharged V-12 water cooled Merlin was only used in airplanes but the engine application seems appropriate. Pratt & Whitney is still using it.

ALL those manufacturer approvals are for Molykote P74 Super Anti Seize.

This is not an OIL ADDITIVE!!!!!!

I hope you're not using Molykote anti seize in your oil Dave because you found out it has GM and VW approval.

Talk about misstatements! You actually had to gall to claim Molykote is manufacturer approved as an oil additive based on manufacturer approval for Molykote anti seize.

Trajan, would you agree that oil additive fanatics seem to lose touch with reality?

Here we have a case of someone so enamoured with MoS2 that he tries to tell us that Anti Seize containing MoS2 is approved by VW and GM as an oil additive.

And that it is ok to use the MoS2 powder or powder in mineral oil because Liqui Moly did testing on their additive that contains MoS2 even though Liqui Moly themselves state they have a special process to ensure it doesn't drop out of suspension.

Apart from the false statements on approvals, he's also saying that usage of MoS2 in the 1930s on aircraft engines is the same use case as for modern engines and that the use in the old air cooled VW Beetles is another reason we should supplement modern oils with this secret magic powder that time forgot.

he's also saying that usage of MoS2 in the 1930s on aircraft engines is the same use case as for modern engines and that the use in the old air cooled VW Beetles is another reason we should supplement modern oils with this secret magic powder that time forgot.

Whether it's WW2 era engines or not, modern infernal combustion technology hasn't done away with bearings, cams, pistons, cylinders, and crankshafts. They are far more similar than different; the mechanics are all the same. You add some refinements of our times, such as different methods of fuel injection, better materials, timing, cooling, compuer contol and diagnostics, etc, but all in all it's still more or less the same.

The degree to which this thread is nitpicking is somewhat amazing---and I would think, actually not very important to those who are more practical minded. (Nobody is asking you to use it Sam.)

Not all oil supplements and motor oils that contain moly are the same. There are differing chemical formulas that contain moly.

Not so long ago a lot of oil companies were putting moly in their motor oils. But the moly was in proper chemical combination and would not drop out of the motor oil after the engine was shut off. But if the moly is in a powder form and not in chemical combination with the oil it can drop out of the oil and potentially cause problems.

A lot of the oil companies seem to have turned to other friction reducers instead of moly. They may be doing this because they have found more effective friction reducers or maybe they are doing it because of cost.

I would not hesitate to put a high moly Pennzoil motor oil into my car engine. It was developed by Pennzoil Corporation. But I would not put some moly powder in my engine that was unknown in quality and from some mysterious company nobody had ever heard of.

I don't think moly is the last word when it comes to friction reducers. If an oil company finds something better to add to their oil I don't care. As long as it works, reduces friction, and does not cause any problems who really cares?

A lot of guys here are very happy with this LM moly product that can be ordered through NAPA. And LM makes motor oils. That company is a name brand. But some mysterious powder that comes from some unknown company? I would be willing to use the LM product but not some moly powder that came from who knows where.

Trajan, would you agree that oil additive fanatics seem to lose touch with reality?

Well, I'd rather not get into that. And you shouldn't either Making it about posters, like was done in the locked thread, gets locked threads.

I just want evidence to back the claims. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And stories/anecdotes are not evidence.

You make a good point.

I guess I am just amazed that someone who jumped on me for saying I used the cheapest oil that met manufacturer specs after he asked me what oil I used and then expressed a concern that others would see the word "cheapest" and make poor choices, then proceeds to quote approvals for anti seize lubricants as evidence that manufacturers approve powdered moly as an oil additive.

The degree to which this thread is nitpicking is somewhat amazing---and I would think, actually not very important to those who are more practical minded. (Nobody is asking you to use it Sam.)

Sure but there was a huge false equivalence being stated.

Namely that if a component is tested or approved in any engine at any point in time, anything that bears a similarity to it, even if the similarity is in the name, is perfectly ok to use.

And to prove the false equivalence, facts were being made up about another product and the product in question.

When we have posters stating that approvals for an anti seize lubricant are approvals for oil additives from GM and VW, there is a huge danger of misunderstanding for people who may find the post and take it as written.

You may think its nitpicking, I see it as a threat to the credibility of this forum.

In Dave's attempt to say MoS2 is approved as an engine oil additive by manufacturers, he said this:

Originally Posted By: dave5358

Approved by vehicle manufacturers? Molykote (Dow Corning's trade name for MoS2 in oil suspension) complies with General Motors (Opel) spec B0401264, Volkswagen specification TL52112 and B7217, General Electric's specification TIL-1117-3Ri and Pratt & Whitney's specificition PWA-36246. And, one of the first spectacular uses of MoS2 in motor oil suspension was by Rolls-Royce in their Merlin engine. Granted, the Rolls Royce supercharged V-12 water cooled Merlin was only used in airplanes but the engine application seems appropriate. Pratt & Whitney is still using it.

ALL those manufacturer approvals are for Molykote P74 Super Anti Seize.

This is not an OIL ADDITIVE!!!!!!

I hope you're not using Molykote anti seize in your oil Dave because you found out it has GM and VW approval.

Talk about misstatements! You actually had to gall to claim Molykote is manufacturer approved as an oil additive based on manufacturer approval for Molykote anti seize.

Trajan, would you agree that oil additive fanatics seem to lose touch with reality?

Well, I'd rather not get into that. And you shouldn't either Making it about posters, like was done in the locked thread, gets locked threads.

I just want evidence to back the claims. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And stories/anecdotes are not evidence.

You make a good point.

I guess I am just amazed that someone who jumped on me for saying I used the cheapest oil that met manufacturer specs after he asked me what oil I used and then expressed a concern that others would see the word "cheapest" and make poor choices, then proceeds to quote approvals for anti seize lubricants as evidence that manufacturers approve powdered moly as an oil additive.

There was no cause for the guy to do that. I use oil from Walmart myself, since you can get Mobil 1/Castrol Edge cheaper than other brick and mortar stores. So is that using cheap oil?

It doesn't matter what anti seize additive was used eighty years ago in an aircraft engine. I fail to see why he made that an issue. And what car manufacturer recommends or uses it in motor oil? It wasn't used in engine oil back then either.

That's something you use to keep, say, the two piece sparkplug Ford uses from seizing so you don't break them while taking them out.

And really, why even take seriously anyone who has to resort to insults when their position falls flat?

Edited by Trajan (05/18/1401:26 PM)

_________________________

Lack of harm is not proof of benefit.

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates

The degree to which this thread is nitpicking is somewhat amazing---and I would think, actually not very important to those who are more practical minded. (Nobody is asking you to use it Sam.)

Sure but there was a huge false equivalence being stated.

Namely that if a component is tested or approved in any engine at any point in time, anything that bears a similarity to it, even if the similarity is in the name, is perfectly ok to use.

And to prove the false equivalence, facts were being made up about another product and the product in question.

When we have posters stating that approvals for an anti seize lubricant are approvals for oil additives from GM and VW, there is a huge danger of misunderstanding for people who may find the post and take it as written.

You may think its nitpicking, I see it as a threat to the credibility of this forum.

Que gatotj..........

_________________________

Lack of harm is not proof of benefit.

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates

Good discussion... My perfect test to see if LiquiMoly MOS2 additive would really help with wear: Run the Sequence IVA cam/lobe wear test, one engine with Pennzoil Platinum 5w-30 and the other engine with the same oil plus the extra moly in there. ... Would there be a difference? This test is needed. Some folks, quite reasonably, believe that plain old Pennz Plat cannot get better wear performance any more than it is --- straight stuff!

Their two oil products that contain the moly additive are 10w40 and 20w50. Both meet ACEA specs but don't claim to meet manufacturer specs nor are approved by any manufacturer.

The 10w40 is recommended for high mileage engines and is apparently the best selling oil in Germany, presumably for high mileage vehicles.

So my conclusions are that new or not worn engines would show no improvement from this particular additive. If there was an mpg improvement then I think manufacturers would specify the usage of the additive in order to claim lucrative CAFE credits and also claim lower emissions which reduces the cost of ownership in Europe.

Now clearly, Liqui Moly and car owners in Germany believe that the additive helps for some older engines. I certainly would be interested in seeing evidence from controlled tests of what the product could actually achieve and in what circumstances. Vehicle manufacturers viewpoints would also be interesting.

I find it hard to understand why Liqui Moly does not provide something more concrete. I kind of understand why manufacturers do not recommend such additives - they would implicitly be admitting that their engines wear sufficiently at certain mileages that performance is impacted.

Good discussion guys! Albeit some of it comes across as arguments, but I have decided to look for oils that have moly already added to their formulation so that I don't end up adding too much moly to my oil mixture. I like how moly has been around for a long time as a good, proven lubricant. Thanks for the responses! All of them are being considered

Good discussion guys! Albeit some of it comes across as arguments, but I have decided to look for oils that have moly already added to their formulation so that I don't end up adding too much moly to my oil mixture. I like how moly has been around for a long time as a good, proven lubricant. Thanks for the responses! All of them are being considered

Mos2 is a different type of moly and not the same as what's found in typical motor oils. Mos2 acts differently as well. The organic type found in typical engine oils doesn't plate/anneal the engine parts that touch each other like mos2 does. Mos2 fills in the hills and valleys typically found on metal parts creating a super smooth surface. Mos2 plates these surfaces and creates a sacrificial layer the parts slide on until oil reaches the moving parts. Once the engine cools the plating effect repeats itself. In my experience I've found that mos2 doesn't do a whole lot when used in newer engines,however once an engine accumulates miles/wear mos2 will aid in restoring lost mileage and potentially lost efficiency by improving ring sealing against cylinder walls. In my small 160cc Honda engines,that turn air compressor pumps I use it every second oil change,a few ounces,and I've got motors with in excess of 10000 hours,which is basically unheard of due to the conditions these engines run under onsite,from extreme dust and 35c heat in the summer to -40c in the winter and these high hour engines still start first pull,without anything more than oil changes. So the 7 dollars I spend per can saves me way more than that once service and replacement costs are considered,especially once you figure I've got 16 of these Honda powered compressors,cost savings become exponential. And presently I'm tracking mileage on the new to me 2001 Sierra C3,with the awd and 6.0 engine. Thus far 1000 miles(2 tanks)into tracking mileage my best mpg on my commute since the new fuel pump has been 17mpg at 60mph,which is turning the engine at roughly 1700rpm. Since my commute is 33 miles each way and traffic non-existent I feel its consistent enough to accurately track mileage in a meaningful test,with wind being the only uncontrolled variable. I'm going to run 10000 miles like this on this oil sump load then at my next oil change add mos2 and track another 10000 miles and note any changes. Truck has 200k kms/120k milesish which,from my experience with the LS series engines is enough wear to note any improvements in the noted areas. I'm changing the plugs this weekend and will note any improvements when that variable is considered. I only adjust a single variable at a time,so any changes can be noted and proper credit given to each adjustment(if any improvement is noted). Bitogers are a tough crowd which is why I only share my experiences when asked. I don't need the headache that inevitably comes with any claims made when using an oil additive. Liqui-moly products are the only additives I will spend money on. I've found that they work as described,however today's engine oils are so good that oil additives really aren't required,however in my quest for improved fuel efficiency reducing friction can help gain a mile or 2 per gallon. In a big v-8 engine a reduction in friction is more noticeable than in a small inline 4 cylinder. More moving parts touching each other means more friction.

Great points, Clevy! Would you say that moly coats and bonds similar to Ti?

I am not familiar with the tribo-chemical layer or how the mechanism works as far as titanium is concerned. However because I'm never satisfied with partial answers I have emailed liqui-moly and discussed mos2 at length with them,because of all the horror stories I read about mos2.

I learned they do something special to prevent mos2 from settling and creating deposits or slime,which I can confirm based on tearing down my old 2v which used mos2 for over 100k. Their particulate size is micron and sub-micron sized so it passes easily thru most(all) commercially available oil filters. Boron is also part of their formulation to aid in tbn retention throughout an entire oil change interval. And though they say on the can to use at every oil change I've found that once used at full strength only half dosage is required to maintain any benefits because once the moving parts are plated the surface only needs to have enough mos2 to maintain the plating. I've got probably in the neighbourhood of 30 emails from liqui-moly because of the different questions I asked and how the mechanism worked,so they had someone in their tech department answer me and not just standard customer service. I found they didn't beat around the bush,give me the "proprietary" blow off and treated my questions,and me as though it/I mattered to them. Which is another reason they are the only company I will buy any type of friction modifier/oil additive from. Yes I buy mmo for vacuum line top end soaks and if I could get kreen or chemtool I'd use it too,but for my needs mmo is easy to acquire and fills my needs as far as a cleaner goes. I happily buy liqui-moly products when I can find them though.

In Dave's attempt to say MoS2 is approved as an engine oil additive by manufacturers, he said this:

Originally Posted By: dave5358

Approved by vehicle manufacturers? Molykote (Dow Corning's trade name for MoS2 in oil suspension) complies with General Motors (Opel) spec B0401264, Volkswagen specification TL52112 and B7217, General Electric's specification TIL-1117-3Ri and Pratt & Whitney's specificition PWA-36246. And, one of the first spectacular uses of MoS2 in motor oil suspension was by Rolls-Royce in their Merlin engine. Granted, the Rolls Royce supercharged V-12 water cooled Merlin was only used in airplanes but the engine application seems appropriate. Pratt & Whitney is still using it.

ALL those manufacturer approvals are for Molykote P74 Super Anti Seize.

This is not an OIL ADDITIVE!!!!!!

I hope you're not using Molykote anti seize in your oil Dave because you found out it has GM and VW approval.

Talk about misstatements! You actually had to gall to claim Molykote is manufacturer approved as an oil additive based on manufacturer approval for Molykote anti seize.

Liqui-Moly/Lubro-Moly is a very reputable company. MoS2 is NOT snake oil! Their product has been on the market since the 1970s and has been used by many hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom are long-time repeat customers who found out about the product by word-of-mouth (like myself). I have been using MoS2 for over 25 years in all of my vehicles over many hundreds of thousands of miles. The MoS2 product is well proven in real world use and it does what they say it does.IMO there are only four additives that are effective and worthy of use in MY vehicles... MoS2, Lubegard, Techron, and TCW3. I have gotten tangible benefits from all four of them.

Liqui-Moly/Lubro-Moly is a very reputable company. MoS2 is NOT snake oil! Their product has been on the market since the 1970s and has been used by many hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom are long-time repeat customers who found out about the product by word-of-mouth (like myself).

Liqui-Moly/Lubro-Moly is a very reputable company. MoS2 is NOT snake oil! Their product has been on the market since the 1970s and has been used by many hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom are long-time repeat customers who found out about the product by word-of-mouth (like myself). I have been using MoS2 for over 25 years in all of my vehicles over many hundreds of thousands of miles. The MoS2 product is well proven in real world use and it does what they say it does.IMO there are only four additives that are effective and worthy of use in MY vehicles... MoS2, Lubegard, Techron, and TCW3. I have gotten tangible benefits from all four of them.

I haven't used lubegaurd however I have used everything else and I gotta say I agree with you. I'm not one to spend good money on stuff that doesn't work,so if I found a product didn't work as advertised I certainly wouldn't spend good money on it.

Nice addition, thanks. According to the parts guy at the local VW dealer, VWs Molykote MoS2 is still in their parts list. He doesn't have any on hand (no surprise there) but he's ordered some for me. Stay tuned.

BTW, if you go down the very bottom of the patent application link posted by Trav, you will see another 1961 patent in the name of Molykote Produktions Gmbh, a German branch of Dow Corning. If you follow the link in that patent, you will see another patent in the name of Alpha Molykote Corporation, yet another Dow Corning operation - they were researching this back in the 1950's. I'm not sure when the following Brazilian ad appeared, but Dow Corning has had a retail MoS2 oil additive product for at least 60 years, maybe 1954 or earlier.

According to Wikipedia, Liqui Moly was formed in 1957 because they, too, had a patent based on liquified Molybdenum Disulfide.

Dave, before you use that stuff in the engine in a car or truck I think you need to do yourself a favor and make sure what the intended uses are. Moly is used for different things.

If I was going to use a moly supplement in my car engine I would use LM, available from NAPA (I would probably have to order it). By the way, Lubegard is still available from NAPA as well as far as I know.

About the only stuff I believe in anymore are Lubegard products, LM moly, Schaeffer's, Bars Leaks, Sta-bil, Techron and Gumout Regane, MMO and Kreen, and that is about it. I am going to buy some Techron pretty soon to put into my gas but I am trying to actually reduce any additive use to almost nothing. For example, I am thinking about just using gas in my wheeled weed trimmer and my lawnmower and not use Stal-bil and MMO.

I haven't used lubegaurd however I have used everything else and I gotta say I agree with you. I'm not one to spend good money on stuff that doesn't work,so if I found a product didn't work as advertised I certainly wouldn't spend good money on it.

I know a couple of VERY reputable locally owned transmission shops. In talking to them about transmission rebuilds, BOTH of them told me that they add a bottle of Lubegard Red and install a Magnefine transmission filter on EVERY transmission rebuild they send out the door. After they started doing these two things, they tell me that comebacks have become virtually non-existent.Shortly after talking with these guys, I helped a friend move a HEAVY trailer across the country with his diesel pickup which has a transmission temperature gauge on it. As we were driving we somehow got into a discussion about additives. I told him what the transmission shops told me about Lubegard and how the manufacturer makes the claim that it lowers transmission temperatures (and by so doing, prolonging the transmission life). We stopped at an auto parts store that we came across along the way and he bought 2 bottles of Lubegard red. He added both of them to his transmission. Sure enough, the transmission temperature gauge started reading about 30-40F cooler after adding it. We were BOTH sold on it right then!Since then, I have installed Magnefine transmission filters and added Lubegard red to all of my vehicles.

LG Red does lower transmission temps even with full synthetic fluid. I proved it with a scan tool. I don't remember the exact temp drop but it did drop it enough to make a difference.

Lube Guard, Liqui Moly, BG, Redline, Chevron (Techron), Molykote, Kano Labs and a few others make very good products, no snake oil IMHO.I must admit i like Lube Guard products a lot, their PS additive works really well also. As you all know i am not a fan of just using additives for the sake of it but they can be of real benefit in many situations.

If the torque converter clutch was engaged near full time in both situations, with similar loads and ambient temperatures, that is a staggering difference I can't fathom assuming proper ATF was already in there.

Update after 1 week:The car is driven by wife daily about 20 miles round trip 30% highway 70% city, so far she put on about 150 miles. Average speed according to the trip computer is 29 MPH and gas mileage is 20.3 MPG.

When the car had M1 0W40 the first 90-100k miles the gas mileage was around 18.0-18.5 MPG when the average speed was 29 MPH, it dropped to 17-17.5 with 28 MPH average.

About 6-7 years ago I used thinner oil: PP 5W20, M1 0W20 ... with 1 oz per quart VSOT the gas mileage went up to 19.0-19.5 with average speed of 29 MPH, 18.5-19.0 with 28 MPH.

Looks like MOS2 improves gas mileage about 3-5%. Will update the fuel economy in 2-3 months.

Update after 1 week:The car is driven by wife daily about 20 miles round trip 30% highway 70% city, so far she put on about 150 miles. Average speed according to the trip computer is 29 MPH and gas mileage is 20.3 MPG.

When the car had M1 0W40 the first 90-100k miles the gas mileage was around 18.0-18.5 MPG when the average speed was 29 MPH, it dropped to 17-17.5 with 28 MPH average.

About 6-7 years ago I used thinner oil: PP 5W20, M1 0W20 ... with 1 oz per quart VSOT the gas mileage went up to 19.0-19.5 with average speed of 29 MPH, 18.5-19.0 with 28 MPH.

Looks like MOS2 improves gas mileage about 3-5%. Will update the fuel economy in 2-3 months.

IIRC Clevy mentioned mpg gains as well using it, over a very long period of recording it.

I've had good luck with mos2 improving highway fuel economy but only in v6 and v8 engines. Every 4 cylinder I've tried it in the owners did mention that the engine was very smooth and quiet but no fuel consumption changes. They were newer vehicles too which may have something to do with it as well.

I'm not one to log mpgs anymore, unless we're going on a road trip. My best experience with MoS2 is it stopped an old mower I acquired from blowing smoke [oil]. It needed a carb rebuild and a plug to get it running. MoS2 completely stopped the smoke issue for a few years now.

I have a feeling the MoS2 "plating" fills tiny imperfections in the cylinder wall similar to Restore, only not as well.

I didn't manual log the fuel mileage, the car has trip computer. I changed oil and reset it so it will start counting down from 10k miles.

I owned the car for 14 years, I read the trip computer once every few thousands miles. It is very accurate compares with manual calculation, the error is less than 2%.

I was a little surprise to see the gas mileage improvement in less than 200-300 miles of adding MoS2.

Another observation, before the oil change there was a small oil leak about 5-15 drops on a cardboard on garage floor very day. The valve cover gasket is original and looked wet. Since adding MoS2 with new oil the leak seems to stop, the cardboard is clean without any oil drop. The engine seems to run a little quieter too.

So far there is no negative effect from the Lubro Moly MoS2 I can detect. There are some snake oils from some questionable companies, and there are some good additives from reputable companies. Lubro/Liqui Moly and Lubegard are 2 of some reputable companies I trusted.

Read a very interesting piece of info on Mos2 that is quite precise and proven. www.theparsecgroup.com/experts.htm After reading this I was sold; ten times over. This is one product in its own class.

Right, its 'own class'. As the most popular industrial lubricant in use today, it deserves its own class. As a motor oil additive that has been in public use for at least 60 years, it deserves its own class. There is no serious debate about the usefulness of MoS2. The only place where its usefulness is debated at all is... BITOG, invariably by people who have never used it. Seriously.

There are several SAE studies cited in your link, as well as university studies of MoS2 - mostly flattering. If you go the the Society of Automobile Engineers website and use their search engine, you will discover that molybdenum in various forms has been very widely studied for a very long time. Studies of other additives like PEA or ZDDP are also studied, but not necessarily in the same numbers.

Don't expect to change many BITOG minds with your posting. Independent studies and research on MoS2 usually have to do with the underlying chemical compound. Brand-name applications of MoS2 (e.g. Molykote or Liqui Moly MoS2) are not independently studied. But brand-name applications of any additive product are never independently studied, for a variety of practical and legal reasons. End products may be studied by the product manufacturer, but manufacturers don't release detailed results of their internal studies. Does anyone think Volkswagen would market or distribute MoS2 under their own name without studying the product? But don't hold you breath waiting for VW to release the results of their research.

BITOG discussion of MoS2 (maybe other additives as well) frequently devolves into two camps: respondents who have used a product, or are considering using it, and are seeking or sharing information. Then there are those who have never used a product but are able to form an opinion that they don't like the product. Take your pick.

In the information sharing department, Parsec Group seems to market several MoS2 related products (Spica Blue, Spica Gold, etc). Spica Blue, a gasoline additive, seems to be registered with the EPA. Has anyone ever seen or used any of their products?

BITOG discussion of MoS2 (maybe other additives as well) frequently devolves into two camps: respondents who have used a product, or are considering using it, and are seeking or sharing information. Then there are those who have never used a product but are able to form an opinion that they don't like the product. Take your pick.

I finally found some solid friction-reduction data!!!! http://www.infineum.com/sitecollectiondocuments/notebooks/gf5/ResearchReport.pdfpage 23, where a variety of different types of gasoline car engines were tested in quality engineering labs for friction reduction (fuel economy increases), where the only thing different was one oil had 1000 ppm moly in it. .... I have been using Mazda's 0w-20 high-moly 600 ppm latest SN oil, and I think they are on to something using that high amount. Now I also feel more confident in buying and using LiquiMoly MOS2 additive. .... Test results show a 0.5% to 3% improvement, depending on the engine you use it in. Thats big.

BITOG discussion of MoS2 (maybe other additives as well) frequently devolves into two camps: respondents who have used a product, or are considering using it, and are seeking or sharing information. Then there are those who have never used a product but are able to form an opinion that they don't like the product. Take your pick.

I finally found some solid friction-reduction data!!!! http://www.infineum.com/sitecollectiondocuments/notebooks/gf5/ResearchReport.pdfpage 23, where a variety of different types of gasoline car engines were tested in quality engineering labs for friction reduction (fuel economy increases), where the only thing different was one oil had 1000 ppm moly in it. .... I have been using Mazda's 0w-20 high-moly 600 ppm latest SN oil, and I think they are on to something using that high amount. Now I also feel more confident in buying and using LiquiMoly MOS2 additive. .... Test results show a 0.5% to 3% improvement, depending on the engine you use it in. Thats big.

Thanks for posting this. Moly is good stuff, IMHO. At 600ppm, the folks at Mazda must agree. That's almost twice the moly content of Schaeffer's Supreme motor oil (and the Schaeffer folks are really into moly).

Thanks for posting this. Moly is good stuff, IMHO. At 600ppm, the folks at Mazda must agree. That's almost twice the moly content of Schaeffer's Supreme motor oil (and the Schaeffer folks are really into moly).

That paper I linked to, on page 20, also shows why Mazda (Idemitsu-sourced 0w-20 oil) claims on their oil bottles that the high-moly oil starts working to reduce friction at lower temperatures. The chart shows a couple of high moly oils beginning to work as low as 50 degC, while other oils without moly don't do much until about 90 degC or so. .... (I learned a while back that Japanese companies rarely make false marketing claims since their culture doesn't allow for losing-face much.)

I finally found some solid friction-reduction data!!!! http://www.infineum.com/sitecollectiondocuments/notebooks/gf5/ResearchReport.pdfpage 23, where a variety of different types of gasoline car engines were tested in quality engineering labs for friction reduction (fuel economy increases), where the only thing different was one oil had 1000 ppm moly in it. .... I have been using Mazda's 0w-20 high-moly 600 ppm latest SN oil, and I think they are on to something using that high amount. Now I also feel more confident in buying and using LiquiMoly MOS2 additive. .... Test results show a 0.5% to 3% improvement, depending on the engine you use it in. Thats big.

The trip computer in my E430 showed 19.3-19.8 MPG with average speed of 29 MPH over more than 20-25k miles. The trip computer was reset at every 4-5k miles. For some interval when average speed was 28 MPH over 4-5k miles, the gas mileage went down to 18.2-18.5 MPG, with average speed of 27 MPH it went down further to mid 17.xx MPG.

With MoS2 the gas mileage is 20.3-20.5 MPG with the same average speed of 29 MPH. I only used 1/2 bottle in 8 quarts sump.

I think Liqui Moly MoS2 is worth $5-6 a bottle. Especially when you use 1/2 bottle for initial treatment and 1/4 bottle maintenance at every oil change. The money saved in lower gas used in an OCI is more than pay for a bottle of MoS2.

I ran 1/2 bottle of Liquimoly MOS2 additive, with Rotella T5 oil, T5 doesn't have any extra moly in its additive package, ran it 4,000 miles. The crankcase capacity is 2 gallons, I should almost be running 2x300ml bottles of mos2 additive with the crankcase capacity. Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel.

Realistically I could've ran Rotella T6 or Mobil1 TDT and it would've had nearly 100ppm MOS2 without any extra additive.

Also another company sells similar additive, Mr. Moly, or Molyslip in Canada.

I ran 1/2 bottle of Liquimoly MOS2 additive, with Rotella T5 oil, T5 doesn't have any extra moly in its additive package, ran it 4,000 miles. The crankcase capacity is 2 gallons, I should almost be running 2x300ml bottles of mos2 additive with the crankcase capacity. Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel.

Realistically I could've ran Rotella T6 or Mobil1 TDT and it would've had nearly 100ppm MOS2 without any extra additive.

Also another company sells similar additive, Mr. Moly, or Molyslip in Canada.

Your not using enough. Use as directed for best results,or for any results at all

See. There are these guys at a company called liqui-moly,and they do these things called tests with their products. Then they take that data and devise a set of instructions when using their products so the user can get the results the company claims. So personally I really couldn't care less if yup light money on fire,or let the stuff collect dust,that's entirely up to you,I merely pointed our that by not following the instructions you will not achieve the desired results. Mos2 is not organic moly,nor tri-nuclear moly,so your link doesn't mean much comparing its use and how many ppm of moly contained. The tri-nuclear type used by shell and Mobil is far more effective than the organic type and therefore needs much less. And if you spent a bit of time reading about mos2 instead of posting with an attitude you'd be aware that organic moly and mos2 don't work in the same manner,and therefore comparing them is like apples and oranges. But carry on. And keep posting. I find it amusing.

Hey, VW is using it so at least we know something positive is gained. Even at its worst its still better than putting something like hyperlube/lucas oil in the crankcase. I have had no issues with LM mos2 and will keep using 150ml in a 3.3 qt sump. I havent seen the gains I wanted, but when I switch from 5w30 PU to 5w20 in the winter this product does marvels to startup and mpg. I have read too many ppls feedback to doubt its use but I had to try it myself and have always had positive results. I think it can be said that products that work remain whilst others go away.

It amazes me that, with all of the reading material here on BITOG, some people STILL don't get that there are TWO different kinds of moly! Other than in a couple of grades of Liqui-Moly's own motor oil, colloidal (particulate molybdenum disulfide) MoS2 is not used by ANY other oil company in ANY of their oils. Organic moly (liquid molybdenum oxide) is what the oil companies put in their oil. Other than sharing the WORD moly and both being used to reduce friction and wear, the two substances are NOT the same and work in entirely different ways. If you want the specific benefits provided by MoS2 colloidal moly, you MUST use an MoS2 additive. I use Liqui-Moly's MoS2. It is a proven product from a reputable company.

It amazes me that, with all of the reading material here on BITOG, some people STILL don't get that there are TWO different kinds of moly! Other than in a couple of grades of Liqui-Moly's own motor oil, colloidal (particulate molybdenum disulfide) MoS2 is not used by ANY other oil company in ANY of their oils. Organic moly (liquid molybdenum oxide) is what the oil companies put in their oil. Other than sharing the WORD moly and both being used to reduce friction and wear, the two substances are NOT the same and work in entirely different ways. If you want the specific benefits provided by MoS2 colloidal moly, you MUST use an MoS2 additive. I use Liqui-Moly's MoS2. It is a proven product from a reputable company.

Hehehe.

With all the info,data and what not we've got in this fine forum I still see posts from guys who truly believe that synthetic is "slipperier" than mineral oil if you can believe that wives tale is still being spread. There should be a sub-forum titled "can you believe this" where members can post some of funny/absurd/ignorant things we've seen from various sources on the net,and here of course. Should be good for a laugh anyways. I'm sure I'd have a few quotes in there over the years. Theses no shame in admitting I don't know something,ignoring facts though because they don't fit into a pre-conceived notion might be though.

My brother hears valve noise on his Porsche. I think he is imagining it because I did not hear it when I drove it (but my hearing is weak) and his Porsche mechanic did not hear it either! He also is little concerned that his mechanic put Motul 5W40 synthetic oil. He was expecting the mechanic to put 10W50 as he is in Virginia climate. I told him to let the mechanic handle it as he knows a *LOT* about these cars and has stellar reputation but my brother is somewhat of an OCD personality when it comes to new to him baby.

So I suggested him that he get a can of LM MOS2 from his local NAPA and put it in. I think this would be the perfect placebo for him :-) Seriously, I think it will make the engine sound nicer and will also give the little bit extra protection to the oil. I assured him that I used it in all my older cars and I have liked it.

My brother hears valve noise on his Porsche. I think he is imagining it because I did not hear it when I drove it (but my hearing is weak) and his Porsche mechanic did not hear it either! He also is little concerned that his mechanic put Motul 5W40 synthetic oil. He was expecting the mechanic to put 10W50 as he is in Virginia climate. I told him to let the mechanic handle it as he knows a *LOT* about these cars and has stellar reputation but my brother is somewhat of an OCD personality when it comes to new to him baby.

So I suggested him that he get a can of LM MOS2 from his local NAPA and put it in. I think this would be the perfect placebo for him :-) Seriously, I think it will make the engine sound nicer and will also give the little bit extra protection to the oil. I assured him that I used it in all my older cars and I have liked it.

Depending on which Motul 5W-40 the mechanic installed, it could actually be thicker than even M1 5W-50 in HTHSV!!

Also, assure him that Motul oils shear VERY little, especially their 300V line.

Long thread but worth reading, some for the information presented, some to see how adamant folks can be about not wanting to consider an alternate view.

As someone in the Tungsten Disulphide business, I am always interested in opinions such as those presented at BITOG regarding oil and grease additives in their various forms. As far as Liqui-Moly of Germany, they are a very good company, and in many surveys, the most well known brand in Germany.

Yes LM offers two MoS2 fortified oils, and their MoS2 fortified engine treatment. No, the MoS2 fortified blends are not accepted or endorsed by the OEM's, as no OEM will probably ever willingly endorse solid insoluble particulate materials for introduction in their oils. The MoS2 used by LM is a solid particulate form of average particle size less than 0.3 micron which allows it to remain suspended in oil due to it's relatively low mass and high surface area at that size. Additionally it will not have problems with filtration at that size.

While they are not specifically endorsed by any OEM, that does not mean that solid particulates have not been tested and accepted internally by OEMs, just that they will not willing offer that acceptance in a non OEM product.

For example, and sorry that I cannot cite specifics due to NDAs, but every one of the "Big 3" has utilized MoS2 or WS2 solid film coatings in their engines at some time or another. One example is cited here: http://subscriptions.sae.org/content/970009/ on the use of solid film on the piston skirts. These have been typically spray coated or plasma deposited coatings on a variety of parts such as Piston Skirts, various Bearings & Bushings, and (Sure to draw flame from the engine break-in purists) Piston Rings.

In almost every case studies were done because these are sacrificial wear coatings, and when they wear, the coating goes into........ that's right into the oil. Every one of the Big 3 has studied these solid particulates extensively and concluded that there are no negative effects, and in some of the cases noted that the beneficial affects warranted leaving the excess powders on the parts in the case of impingement spray, or thicker layers in the case of deposition to allow for some extra material in the oil.

Now in a standard spray coating of WS2 the average particle size is 0.5 microns. The typical average size of MoS2 is 1-3 microns but can be processed down to 0.3 and lower as needed. So how does that compare to an OEM's acceptable level of oil contaminants? Typical filtration is in the what 10-15 micron effective range if I am not too far off.

So an OEM appears to be fine with filtration that will allow solid contaminants of let's say carbon at 8 microns to wander around the engine, and yes it will probably get filtered eventually. Not the best lubricant in the engine would you say, but proven solid lubricant particulates in the sub micron size range as utilized by LM is a concern?

Again I am asking if you truly believe that a 0.3 micron particle of MoS2, that is less than 1/25th the size of that 8 micron bit of abrasive carbon that is acceptable to the OEMs, is to be considered unacceptable? Sure, get some user that dumps 2 pounds of MoS2 into their Prius engine, there are going to be problems. But used as directed by a competent manufacturer and are you really going to stand by the argument that a solid form of Moly is bad whereas a soluble form is ok?

Now I make a few assumptions here, one is that the particles are actually sub micron and from a reliable source. Two would be that the MoS2 is of high quality because as a mined material, it is subject to the geological conditions under which is formed. Three is that if the solid particulate is in an oil, that the oil blend conforms otherwise to all specifications needed for the vehicle, and if it is a treatment, then the carrier must not interfere with the oil it is being added to.

I surely hope that the folks here do not contend that MoS2 is not a lubricant as that would be ridiculous.

It is worth noting that MoS2 much like WS2 coats almost all of the internal surfaces that it comes in contact with which is one reason a first time treatment will result in more MoS2 coming out of the oil. I have read numerous times that it only coats friction surfaces which is simply not the case. The plus side is that both MoS2 and WS2 will actively hold a film of oil on the surfaces they have coated providing a layer of oil on cold start, as well as providing a corrosion resistant layer when an engine is stored for a prolonged time.

The next technological step in solid lubricants was to drop into the true Nano sizes below 0.1 micron as this increases the surface area and reactivity. In the Nano sizes even WS2, which has about 50% more mass than MoS2, will stay in suspension without a separate dispersant. Nano WS2 is available commercially in products such as Miller's Oil products, or some of Archoil's treatments. Nano MoS2 may or may not ever see commercial product as it is easier to suspend due to it's lower mass.

So that was a few thoughts to add to this discussion, and a question or two about the validity of OEMs views on, and acceptance of, particulate lubricants in an engine. Hope it was not a total waste of your time to read, and I will try to find time to stay more current in the forums.

Some years back on another Forester, I tried a K&N air filter. It was a royal PITA and I could see no benefit. If you put on too much oil, your MAF would turn to mush. Too little oil and the filter did no good. When I got ready to sell the vehicle, I left the K&N in place. The very first guy who looked at the vehicle immediately noticed the K&N air filter. He was really impressed! I think it sealed the deal, so it turned out to be a good thing after all.

That picture is pretty impressive Nebroch, a picture is worth a thousand words, it is proof that MoS2 does what they say it does! The naysayers will likely say "the cam lobe probably looked like that before the MoS2 treatment", or something along those lines.

A 1958 Willys Jeep I6 that ran 30km without oil just the remainings with Molycote. No sump, 1966 oil. They Put the oil back and the engine was pretty fine ... Maybe a clinger ester + MOs2Any car with any remanings could do that and keep usable? better at 2:20 ... 10 laps at Buenos aires race track.